A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Feel I could lose everything - help

  • OBEs 1 canoodly
  • OBEs 1 canoodly's Avatar Posted by
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
More
10 Aug 07 #1869 by OBEs 1 canoodly
Reply from OBEs 1 canoodly
Hi Mike and Sandra

I respect everything you have both told me and to be honest it has confirmed what I have learnt over the past 18 months, so by the way Mike, you didn't upset me at all! Sorry if it seemed that way - the red mist comes up sometimes I'm sure you understand!

I knew you didn't mean I would have to pay her legals but if you think about it I will be put to the back of the queue because of the fact the judge takes this in to consideration on summing up what she can afford! I was wondering why she was so prepared to take it this far and spend money she hasn't got!!! Do judges not take this cunning into account?

The fact that she has turned down everything I have offered (reasonable offers too) and gone down a route that two judges have warned her due to costs not to do (FH)?? So by doing this she has figured I stand even less of a chance of getting anything because she has upped her legal fees to a point she cannot pay back. Maybe she opted not to have legal aid knowing this because on her wage I would have thought she could get LA? I know LA has to be paid back but I also know it can be attached to the house. This way by not being on LA nothing will have to be attached, she gets the house and only has to take out a loan to cover legals and gets away with not paying me!! Much cheaper and she has her revenge! Very very cunning!

She walked into a high street building society and on her wages they offered her 30 grand. This was done on a repayment basis and only over 5 years. The monthly repayment was incredibly high but what I can't understand is that surely this would NOT have been offered if they felt she couldn't afford it? Also surely she couldn't have asked them to up the anti to make it look as if the monthly repayments were out of her reach? This would surely be against financial regulations?

Therefore, my point is if she has been offered this, then she must have a small mortgage capacity and therefore surely she could pay me off opting to take the loan on an interest only basis (which would be cheaper per month over 5 years because surely no one in this world can live completely rent free?) then choose at age 65 to revert to equity release to pay off this mortgage thus leaving her in the home still with equity (house hopefully increased in value) but no monthly payments?

She set aside in her "monthly needs" equation an amount towards rent/mortgage should an order be made to sell. She will also be coming to the end of a loan she had along with what she had set aside for credit card payments so quite a bit of extra money being freed up soon! Mind you, having looked at her bank details she ends up at the end of each month with about the same as I do - sometimes more!! My outgoings have increased two fold along with the fact I am self employed and have to pay for all my own petrol - do over 500 miles per week, tools, maintain my vehicle, trade insurances etc etc out of my monthly income. Do judges really look at all of this? I just sometimes feel they see this massive bundle and really can't be bothered looking at all of it and just assume well he earns more so we will give it to her. Does my age, illness and future earning capacity come into any of this? Where do my needs get taken into consideration? I'm sure Sandra can understand my frustration here!!!

I don't want to go down the path of a final hearing but I fear I will have no choice. My ex2b, apart from stubborn, is a very strong, very fit woman for her age apart from a few ailments that in fact she has learnt to live (and work with) over the past 15 years which now suddenly and mysteriously may cause her not to work!! The crazy thing is, if that is the case how does she propose to keep up the maintenance of the home with no job if she wins all? I have also recently found out that she never approached the courts for spousal maintenance when I originally left 7 years ago and therefore has proved herself to be self supporting. Will any of this count?

Mike, one thing you didn't answer and I know you are not an expert but I value your thoughts as you seem like a very clued up guy (you really do become an expert going down this path eh?) If I went for the deferred charge angle what percentage can I go for? Could I still keep a 50% interest? Based on that could I keep my very small pension by the fact that she has lived rent free for 7 years and will continue to do so? Could this be considered her share of rent???

Sandra you asked and I replied about the fact I have continued to pay the mortgage up to discharge since leaving but didn't give your thoughts on this - any thing you could add?

Everyone tells me to take advice from my solicitor but it seems to me that both the solicitors I have had (this second one is slightly better) look at me like I am completely mad when I ask them to try to push this case on with offers etc. Same again when I have asked them for advice!!! It seems that unless I provide the information to them that their hands are tied legally, there is only so much they can do which doesn't really amount to very much! I really would like to know how solicitors have the cheek to charge such high amounts when I feel me and my NP have done most of the work (research) for them!!!

My feelings are that time has come for the law to be taken out of divorce. Personally I think solicitors cause more rifts and damage in certain cases that could be dealt with far more simply. mediation, Relate, etc would surely deal with warring couples so much better and I am sure more cases could simply be rubber stamped by the courts instead of years of misery! These people are trained to deal with all this emotional stuff, solicitors aren't, they only know how to line their pockets by causing the war!!! I realise legals will always be needed for more complex cases.

Mike I live in the North of England so property still reasonable -ish and I found a fabulous property for her for 100 grand! All decorated to the hilt and far more manageable for her with "her ailments"!! I could have had the left overs! BUT NO, NO, NO! That is all I ever get.....mind you I should have known because in the last 10 years of our marriage thats all I got anyway, well, thats if she chose to speak to me....but of course "its all my fault"!!! hey ho! :sick:

Mike what sort of tax implications would there be? Do you mean I would end up having shares in two properties? As far as I am aware, because I haven't had any of the proceeds from my former home but have bought another be it I only have a 1% share that in effect this would be the same as having a bridging loan, similar to if I had bought a new home but the old home was still unsold because I have not profited from either? (And probably never will knowing my luck - hee hee!)

Still I keep smiling hence the nick "old blue eyes" - they've always got me into trouble - in the nicest cheekiest way possible!!!

Thanks to you both! Sorry to be a bore but every little bit helps! .....Now that reminds me, I have to go and do the shopping!!!!! OBE (Wow never realised my nick came out as OBE! Wonder if I'll be up for one after all this - what do you think my chances are?)

  • OBEs 1 canoodly
  • OBEs 1 canoodly's Avatar Posted by
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
More
10 Aug 07 #1871 by OBEs 1 canoodly
Reply from OBEs 1 canoodly
Hi Mike and Sandra

I respect everything you have both told me and to be honest it has confirmed what I have learnt over the past 18 months, so by the way Mike, you didn't upset me at all! Sorry if it seemed that way - the red mist comes up sometimes I'm sure you understand!

I knew you didn't mean I would have to pay her legals but if you think about it I will be put to the back of the queue because of the fact the judge takes this in to consideration on summing up what she can afford! I was wondering why she was so prepared to take it this far and spend money she hasn't got!!! Do judges not take this cunning into account?

The fact that she has turned down everything I have offered (reasonable offers too) and gone down a route that two judges have warned her due to costs not to do (FH)?? So by doing this she has figured I stand even less of a chance of getting anything because she has upped her legal fees to a point she cannot pay back. Maybe she opted not to have legal aid knowing this because on her wage I would have thought she could get LA? I know LA has to be paid back but I also know it can be attached to the house. This way by not being on LA nothing will have to be attached, she gets the house and only has to take out a loan to cover legals and gets away with not paying me!! Much cheaper and she has her revenge! Very very cunning!

She walked into a high street building society and on her wages they offered her 30 grand. This was done on a repayment basis and only over 5 years. The monthly repayment was incredibly high but what I can't understand is that surely this would NOT have been offered if they felt she couldn't afford it? Also surely she couldn't have asked them to up the anti to make it look as if the monthly repayments were out of her reach? This would surely be against financial regulations?

Therefore, my point is if she has been offered this, then she must have a small mortgage capacity and therefore surely she could pay me off opting to take the loan on an interest only basis (which would be cheaper per month over 5 years because surely no one in this world can live completely rent free?) then choose at age 65 to revert to equity release to pay off this mortgage thus leaving her in the home still with equity (house hopefully increased in value) but no monthly payments?

She set aside in her "monthly needs" equation an amount towards rent/mortgage should an order be made to sell. She will also be coming to the end of a loan she had along with what she had set aside for credit card payments so quite a bit of extra money being freed up soon! Mind you, having looked at her bank details she ends up at the end of each month with about the same as I do - sometimes more!! My outgoings have increased two fold along with the fact I am self employed and have to pay for all my own petrol - do over 500 miles per week, tools, maintain my vehicle, trade insurances etc etc out of my monthly income. Do judges really look at all of this? I just sometimes feel they see this massive bundle and really can't be bothered looking at all of it and just assume well he earns more so we will give it to her. Does my age, illness and future earning capacity come into any of this? Where do my needs get taken into consideration? I'm sure Sandra can understand my frustration here!!!

I don't want to go down the path of a final hearing but I fear I will have no choice. My ex2b, apart from stubborn, is a very strong, very fit woman for her age apart from a few ailments that in fact she has learnt to live (and work with) over the past 15 years which now suddenly and mysteriously may cause her not to work!! The crazy thing is, if that is the case how does she propose to keep up the maintenance of the home with no job if she wins all? I have also recently found out that she never approached the courts for spousal maintenance when I originally left 7 years ago and therefore has proved herself to be self supporting. Will any of this count?

Mike, one thing you didn't answer and I know you are not an expert but I value your thoughts as you seem like a very clued up guy (you really do become an expert going down this path eh?) If I went for the deferred charge angle what percentage can I go for? Could I still keep a 50% interest? Based on that could I keep my very small pension by the fact that she has lived rent free for 7 years and will continue to do so? Could this be considered her share of rent???

Sandra you asked and I replied about the fact I have continued to pay the mortgage up to discharge since leaving but didn't give your thoughts on this - any thing you could add?

Everyone tells me to take advice from my solicitor but it seems to me that both the solicitors I have had (this second one is slightly better) look at me like I am completely mad when I ask them to try to push this case on with offers etc. Same again when I have asked them for advice!!! It seems that unless I provide the information to them that their hands are tied legally, there is only so much they can do which doesn't really amount to very much! I really would like to know how solicitors have the cheek to charge such high amounts when I feel me and my NP have done most of the work (research) for them!!!

My feelings are that time has come for the law to be taken out of divorce. Personally I think solicitors cause more rifts and damage in certain cases that could be dealt with far more simply. mediation, Relate, etc would surely deal with warring couples so much better and I am sure more cases could simply be rubber stamped by the courts instead of years of misery! These people are trained to deal with all this emotional stuff, solicitors aren't, they only know how to line their pockets by causing the war!!! I realise legals will always be needed for more complex cases.

Mike I live in the North of England so property still reasonable -ish and I found a fabulous property for her for 100 grand! All decorated to the hilt and far more manageable for her with "her ailments"!! I could have had the left overs! BUT NO, NO, NO! That is all I ever get.....mind you I should have known because in the last 10 years of our marriage thats all I got anyway, well, thats if she chose to speak to me....but of course "its all my fault"!!! hey ho! :sick:

Mike what sort of tax implications would there be? Do you mean I would end up having shares in two properties? As far as I am aware, because I haven't had any of the proceeds from my former home but have bought another be it I only have a 1% share that in effect this would be the same as having a bridging loan, similar to if I had bought a new home but the old home was still unsold because I have not profited from either? (And probably never will knowing my luck - hee hee!)

Still I keep smiling hence the nick "old blue eyes" - they've always got me into trouble - in the nicest cheekiest way possible!!!

Thanks to you both! Sorry to be a bore but every little bit helps! .....Now that reminds me, I have to go and do the shopping!!!!! OBE (Wow never realised my nick came out as OBE! Wonder if I'll be up for one after all this - what do you think my chances are?)

  • LittleMrMike
  • LittleMrMike's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
10 Aug 07 #1882 by LittleMrMike
Reply from LittleMrMike
I'm afraid that I am getting the impression that this discussion could go on for a long time and not get much further.

On the basis of the facts as I know them, there is, in my view, quite a strong probability that :

(a) The court would not order a sale of the FMH ;
(b) It is unlikely that a Court would order your wife to make a cash payment ;
(c) I do not think your wife would be expected to downsize ;
(d) But there is a reasonable chance that you could retain an interest in the FMH which might be realisable when and if she re-marries, cohabits, dies, or voluntarily leaves the accommodation. By the way, the tax considerations relate to capital gains tax. The exemption for your main home applies only as long as you live there. I believe there are ways round the problem, but ask your solicitor.

However I must make the important qualification that neither I, nor your solicitor, can give you much in the way of useful advice without a full and honest disclosure of the financial position of you and your wife. You must have filled in a form E, surely. Presumably your wife has done the same. So I can only repeat what I said in my earlier post - you must check anything I say with your solicitor.

If you can get a deal which gives you the following :
(a) your pension remains intact ;
(b) no liability for spousal maintenance ;
(c) a deferred charge on the former marital home ; ( sorry to say so, but that share is not likely to be 50% - 30% give or take 10% on either side is more likely )
(d) in other words, a Clean Break -

then my own personal opinion is that such a deal would be well worth considering. It is not perfect - I never said it was. But the fact is that there isn't enough to go round here. You have to balance what you stand to gain against the costs of achieving it. Mr Piglowski and Mrs Piglowska had a fight in court over a house costing £175K. Their final bill was more than that. Mr and Mrs North spent £400,000 arguing about £202,000. Mr and Mrs White went to the House of Lords over £5million. Final bill, apparently, £1,5 million. Scandalous, yes. But have I made my point ?

I agree with much of what you say about the English legal system. But I could go on about that topic till the cows come home. Try and look to the future, Settle with your s2bx on the best terms you can. Then forget her and concentrate on re-building your life and making a go of it with your NP.

Good luck
Mike 100468

  • mumof2
  • mumof2's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
10 Aug 07 #1884 by mumof2
Reply from mumof2
Hi sorry I did not answer your question have had a lot on my mind, Do wonder if your xs are related as we are having the same probs.
My x has continued to pay the full mortgage on the f/h he is the higher earner now has own propert all be that its is mortgaged, two incomes, 2 cars and several hols abroad each year. I have two dependant children lost a business I sunk everything into due to stress related fits, Just set up again got nothing(that wrong got girls and happy times in a tent) but and hears my point I am sitting here on a friday night getting statements from 03 to todate, have to find a mortgage to buy him out and because we put money into the business I have to find a portion to give to him now the former business has sold. A business worth 250k has gone for 28k each partner of which there are two.
Just dont think because she is being difficult that it will all go her way but be prepared to back every thing up especially the mortgage as in my case I have to buy him out or come to a deal before next hearing in 8 weeks.
It is not always clear cut and I promise you it will not all go her way.
I really thought I had a good case to keep the family home, He had an affair with our family friend, I have suffered abuse both mentally and physically from this friend, had arson attacks on my home with the children in bed and that is the mild stuff.I still lose. So I am not all that sure that your ex will walk with everything.
Hope this makes sense.
I am putting you in my xs position with out the c*** and he wins.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11